Seeing is NOT believing, anymore

Seeing is NOT believing in a world where all images are manipulated. I am not talking about the unreliability of eye-witness testimony, so much in the news recently. My reference is to the ubiquity of photo manipulation. 

In our world all photographs are manipulated, processed, photoshopped. This is an intelligent assumption to make when you gaze at any photo that comes to your attention. Your first reaction should be, this is fake. I have noticed however, when mentioning this to sophisticated people, a reaction of shock. 

There are a number of unpleasant results from this widespread alternation of photographs. Here I do not mean people presented with unrealistic body images they try to imitate. That has been going on for millenia. I may elaborate on this in another post. 

There are pleasant results from this common tinkering with the images that flow across the web, and our consciousness. The sky is brighter, human sympathy may in fact be becoming enlarged. 

And in fact, this development of widespread tinkering is part of larger changes, ultimately, for the good, though the results are typically seen by one's children. I just say--- assume a picture is fake, the first time you see it.

Groundhogs and Shadows

How many grounds does a groundhog chuck

if a groundhog could chuck mysteries--Grok

This- at least one: 

where are the shadows of words?

For every speech has one;

I would say ---every word has a shadow,

every word  is a nest, with  a bird 

the intellect cannot detect--

But that confuses the metaphor of  a grandchuck's shadow.

The real story behind a real headline

The real story behind a real headline. Which headline is

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/nearly-2000-civilians-were-killed-nigerian-terror-attack-wheres-media

I am sure the article is comparing 2000 vs the 17 lives lost in the terrorist attack on the office of a satirical magazine in Paris, last week. No doubt wondering how the media could focus on lives lost on such a smaller scale.  

The reason for the discrepancy is not primarily racism, or media obtuseness. The real reason is that the media felt some of their own were attacked. "Their own" being fellow scribblers. Their attention followed their hearts. 

This phenomenon is not apparent just in humans. My case though is built on the observation of the way toddlers look at each other in passing cars. Their little heads swivel first to another child in another car, before other possible topics of interest. Same thing with geezers.

Now, this I have noticed for years. What only recently came to my attention is that dogs do the same thing. Again, it was passengers in passing cars that alerted me to what is a widespread, one assumes genetic, interest in others similar to oneself. Dogs also swirl their heads to observe another dog in another vehicle. 

This analysis points to the basic causes. It does not rule out other factors playing a part. But we first need to understand the original impulses if we are to evaluate any possible remedies. 

In this case the underlying cause is the interest writers have, in other--- writers. And they cannot help it. 

He had a what

There's a space there--- a gap -- which can be extended.

Just some dings for the dumb
.....
you get, that you want to be the 'dumb'..... This may be way to much to put out in public....

A pile of -- peoples

Pebbles on a mountain side are unlike pebbles worn by the waves. In their tiny peaks and steep inclines they may well bear a fractal resemblance to the mountain on which they rest. Usually rest. For of course the ambient conditions and interior volcanic potential of the mountain can at any time initiate movement the pebbles might well misdescribe as something they themselves had intended. Skidding, bouncing, down a slope, can't you hear them insisting they had planned the whole excursion? 

Is there really a wall between the inside and the outside, of man

We quote now from a National Geographic  blog

Take two people with identical genes and put them in different environments, and some of their genes may respond in different ways. That's long been a good counterargument against genetic hyper-determinism.

Oh really. I like this quote because it simply states an assumption apparent in much writing about science--- this concern about preserving man's free will. In this case, if we tug at his argument, it may show up sloppy thinking. The idea is that  greater complexity is an avenue for greater freedom for the individual. Yet how could that be. Greater complexity just mean more intricate genetic functioning. Greater complexity mean tighter determinism not a lapse from "hyper-determinism." It seems so obvious, but that is because I heard Jan Cox discussing causality  occasionally. Relevant here is his pointing out that there is no  genetic inside and environmental outside. That environment outside you, it is just more genetics. So obvious, what is outside us, it is genetic also. 

This kind of blatant disregard for reality, is something to ponder, another time. 

When words are worthless

This article is interesting as an example of how ordinary language can plausibly miss the whole reality. I copied this paragraph--

But the notion of ending suffering through extreme spiritual stances—the cessation of desire (Buddhism) or of emotion (Stoicism)—doesn't square well with other values we hold dear, such as caring for one another or seeking to improve our own lives.

May I suggest that the case may be quite otherwise. What if such discipline is in fact a means of feeling for others beyond the bounds of normal experience. I merely present this as a possibility.